I think you have caught the intense concentration and interaction of the two subjects rather well. However, I find the person to the rear and left of the female too distracting due to the lack of separation from her (in fact, one of my first thoughts was wondering what that person was doing rather than the main parties). Although I'm sure it may not have been possible, it would have been nice to see the photo taken from a few steps to your right. That may have separated the two a bit as well as move that distracting light toned line coming out of the top of his head. Once I noticed it, I found it difficult to disregard (perhaps some judicious use of the dodge/burn tool would solve that).

It's a workshop, instruction, a group of enthusiasts learning from a master. The shot contains hints of this with the woman on the right of the frame with her easel barely caught and the third woman in the left background working on her composition.

A much wider lens, deeper dof and closer to the first group bringing all three (or more?) painters into the composition might have worked. I can't imagine you didn't have time to explore this setting in more detail to work out a better shot.

You could have tried charming the socks of the ladies if the gentleman was a little brusk. Or better yet, told them you represented "Canvas and Oils", the preeminent publication of the Arts for the sunshine folks the world over.

To me everything but the central couple is distraction - the central couple are well worth a shot just for themselves, with a bit of an erotic sub-text implied there.

I think that's the nub of it, Russ. The couple are the story - I'd rather not know they're part of a group. It spoils the chemistry. I realise you don't crop but for the sake of the exercise, move in tight on the couple - I think it's a stronger and more intriguing picture? Perhaps you did that and have more up your sleeve!

I think that I am the odd one out here? I can understand the criticisms that the others have noted but despite that I think the image still works. The two people in the background set the scene. As to DOF then the person on the right isn't far away enough for any separation to be effective. I think this is one of your better ones Russ.

I think that I am the odd one out here? I can understand the criticisms that the others have noted but despite that I think the image still works. The two people in the background set the scene. As to DOF then the person on the right isn't far away enough for any separation to be effective. I think this is one of your better ones Russ.

To be clear, I don't think this shot works. But the setting leads me to think there were several opportunities to get one that might have.

Thanks all but one for some first class critiques. Ken caught the main problem, and others made the same point.

Jenn, The title was tongue-in-cheek, but I probably should have used one of those wretched "emoticons" to make that clear. But you seem to have the idea I could hang around, change lenses, walk around the edges and find the best point of view while these two turned to salt. In fact, I was walking by in the street, saw the gal start to point and give instructions, cranked the lens all the way out and raised the camera while I was still walking. The woman looked up and saw me, but she was intent on what she was telling her student. She looked back down just for a second. I paused for one step, shot, and walked on. Come on, you're not like BD, who hasn't a clue how street shots are made. You do good street work yourself and you know perfectly well how long you usually have to make a shot. I don't "charm" folks. I shoot pictures of them. (I do smile a lot.)

In the end, I think I agree with Stamper. The disheveled surroundings give the people a sense of place, but I also think the couple alone is worth the trouble to crop to them. Everybody who commented on the bright streak on the tree above the guy's head was right. I should have caught that.

But now I'll have to find a photographic priest and confess that I cropped. Mea culpa.

I think the third person in the grouping, the person on the right of the frame behind the couple painting makes this one work.

Is this an attempt at street, or is it a picture of two people painting? I think both photographs are present in the original frame, and I am not entirely certain which one is better. I think I like the first one better, there's more to look at and discover. It rewards the viewer for spending time rather more, which is a feature I enjoy in a photograph.

I think the third person in the grouping, the person on the right of the frame behind the couple painting makes this one work.

Is this an attempt at street, or is it a picture of two people painting? I think both photographs are present in the original frame, and I am not entirely certain which one is better. I think I like the first one better, there's more to look at and discover. It rewards the viewer for spending time rather more, which is a feature I enjoy in a photograph.

I tend to agree with your first statement, Andrew. But it wasn't really an attempt at anything in particular. As I told Jennifer, I was walking by with a camera over my shoulder, I saw something come together, and I shot. I'd probably classify the uncropped original as street, though it doesn't have the ambiguity I'd expect to see in good street.

Yes indeed - and that is so often the case with this kind of exposure - more than one possible interesting output. It must take great strength of character - or great obstinacy - to stick even in part to a "no cropping" ordinance.

Russ, the more I look at the second version, the more one-dimensional it becomes. I've taken a great liberty and tried this along the lines suggested by Andrew above - I think he may be right. I think the second lady adds depth and ambiguity - more like street.

Yes, I very well know that changing a lens takes time and it risks loosing an opportunity. But in this case, the scene itself was likely relatively static and there was a lot more to be gained by taking the time to look at other aspects. So I'll stand by my comment earlier in that this is a banal image in a setting that could have produced more.